Re: [Phys-L] just for fun

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

Of course now we need to define or explain what we mean by 'thinking'!  ;-)

I would offer that what is being pushed in the 'critical thinking' 
circles is ANALYSIS.  That is, we want students to analyze information 
within certain contexts--rather than just regurgitate facts or 
plagiarize other people's analyses.  We have a new general-education 
curriculum at my school where 'critical thinking' is being 
emphasized--to the point of having required 'critical thinking' seminars 
(which nobody wants to teach). Luckily I'm about to retire so I can stay 
out of most of this, but I do argue that all of our science courses and 
almost all of the other college courses are (or at least should be) 
'critical thinking' courses.  I (and others) see little or no need for 
the seminars if the courses offered are really 'college' level 
enterprises (and most really are!)  However, three new committees formed 
to administer this curriculum need something to do!  ;-(

rwt

On 12/31/2013 9:00 AM, Philip Keller wrote:
> Not to be a wise guy, but it seems to me that when I read a definition 
> of "critical thinking" it always seems that you could omit the word 
> "critical" and be fine.  Is it possible that those who promote 
> "critical thinking" have not done enough "critical thinking" about the 
> word "critical" in that context?  Or is it to be a sort of code-word 
> or place-holder for "not just wool gathering or day dreaming but 
> focused, purposeful attempts to make sense of something important"?  
> Still, I'd call it "thinking".


--
Richard Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College

free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html